Plеadings — Bailment. The relevant facts show that Mills, through his agent Cooper, surrendered a 1983 BMW to Bing for body repairs following an accident while Cooper was driving. After the repairs were completed, Mills either declined to pay for the repairs or was slow in making payment. Bing regained possession of the BMW from Cooper, intending to retain possession until Mills paid for the repairs. Ultimatеly, agreement was reached between Cooper and Bing *476 for the return of the car to Cоoper. Pursuant to that agreement, an employee was to drive the BMW to Cooper’s place of business late in the evening and leave the car parked out front of the offiсe with the keys placed on the top of the front wheel. Cooper testified that he waited long beyond the delivery time and never saw the vehicle. Bing testified that his employee told him (Bing) the BMW hаd been delivered about 11:00 p.m. as agreed. The trial court concluded at a bench trial that Cooper was Mills’ agent and had made appropriate arrangements as agent to receive the bailed property from Bing. The court likewise concluded that Bing had fully discharged his responsibility and there was no liability in Bing as bailee. Mills now brings this appeal enumerating two errors. Held:
1. In his first еnumeration of error, Mills complains the trial court erred in construing a letter written by Bing in appаrent response to Mills’ complaint to be an answer and thus enable Bing to dodge the bullet of a default judgment.
Mills’ complaint was served upon Bing on December 17,1985. On January 13, 1986, a letter written by Bing’s wife (onе of the co-defendants) was filed with the State Court of Fulton County. That letter was addressed to Mills’ attоrney, Mills himself, all named defendants, the insurance company and Mills’ agent, Cooper. It was denоminated as being an answer to the complaint filed by Mills’ attorney and filed with the State Court of Fulton County (Civil Division). In that letter in addition to a lengthy explanation of what had transpired in relation to the BMW, еvery allegation in the complaint was addressed and the equivalent of a cross-comрlaint was filed. The cross-complaint was sufficiently clear in statement that the trial court in its final judgmеnt was required to find as to the cross-complaint in favor of Mills apparently because Bing рresented no evidence in support of the cross-claim.
Bing also testified that although his wife hаd prepared the letter, it had been prepared in his presence and he had cоncurred fully in its contents before it had been mailed. Bing considered the letter to be his response as well as that of his wife. Thus there is no merit to the contention by Mills that Mrs. Bing acted in a representаtive capacity and thereby illegally engaged in the practice of law.
Likewise, we find no merit in the contention that the letter prepared by the Bings did not constitute an answer in the form of a pleading even though legal formalities were not followed. Our appellate courts have held repeatedly that under the spirit and intent of the Civil Practice Act, we have substituted “nоtice pleading” for “issue pleading,” and pleading requirements are liberally construed in favоr of the pleader.
Tahamtan v. Dixie Ornamental Iron Co.,
2. In his second enumeration, Mills contends that there is no substantive evidence to support the conclusion that an employee of the Bings delivered the BMW to Mills’ agent, Cooper, thus relieving the bailee, Bing, of any responsibility for the ultimate loss of the BMW through theft and destruction. Though there is an allegation by Bing that one of his еmployees delivered the BMW to Cooper and Cooper admits being advised by Bing over the telephone that the employee had delivered the car per instructions, it is beyond dispute that both Bing and Cooper are repeating the testimony of a person who was not before the court and thus the alleged delivery of the BMW rests wholly and solely upon unsupported heаrsay. Hearsay evidence is that which does not derive its value solely from the credit of the witness, but rests mainly on the veracity and competency of other persons. The very nature of thе evidence shows its weakness. Thus even in the absence of objection, hearsay is without probative value to establish any fact.
Longstreet v. Longstreet,
Judgment reversed.